What can possibly be the benefit to society to force women to have unwanted children?
It has nothing to do with:
- All life is sacred,
- It is God’s will.
I like, but don’t think it is the entire answer, Sara Waddington’s (lawyer who argued Roe v. Wade at Supreme Court) idea that the reason to deny abortion rights is to keep women subservient to men. Best to have them barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen – and out of the workplace. The women who march in the “Pro Life” demonstrations have bought into this narrative. I guess for them, it is better to be a mom than to deal with real life, i.e. get a job, be financially self-sufficient (think Mary Richards on the Mary Tyler Moore Show).
Here is a great article about how the “Pro Lifers” are really “pro birth.” They love and protect and will march for a blob of protoplasm in the uterus, but the minute it turns into a real human after birth, support ends. With a single, minimum wage mother, good luck with that one.
My assumption: I believe our laws, institutions, and religions are in the service of the financial elite, say, the top one-tenth of one percent. Those are the people who make the laws and tell the Congress what to do. So denying birth control information, contraception methods, or abortion to women, must benefit them in some way.
Don’t kid yourself for a minute that it has anything at all to do with god or the rules of the Catholic church. If it was economically harmful to the elites, they would have the church change its theology in a heartbeat.
So, why do the elites want lots of impoverished, unwanted babies? Two words: labor force. If there are throngs of unskilled poor people at the bottom, cost of labor goes down. They compete for low wage jobs, and bingo, the elites make even more money. Of course, the elites control the church and its theology for their own benefit. Religion may be the “opiate of the masses” as Karl Marx said, but in addition, it is a money-making machine for the elites.